A Death Knell for Entreprenuership

[Don]

>While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

What do your written orders require you to do? "Oral orders don't go." Especially with no witnesses.

Doesn't matter; the question lies with "legal and moral." And you're right; the supervisor, knowing or having figured out he was in the wrong, might suddenly change his story, leaving you to do all the explaining by yourself.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

However, if I and another individual engage in a sale, where both parties consent to the terms, the government has no right to interfere. This is so clear, it seems ludicrous that any right minded individual would argue the point.



Boy, I sure do! Chalk dust not withstanding (since chalk is in fact dangerous in large amounts, and thus would be a criminal action, not a commercial one). The fact is, in a free market this would never happen. People would quickly find out about the contaminants in the flour (through private businesses such as consumer reports, BBB, etc.), and they would do business elsewhere. People would also be able to buy the products much cheaper, and in many cases healthier

So do you think that this is a tyrannical power?

To...fix the standard of weights and measures;

 

[freeatlast]

If you're implying that I should have provided you the information about what is taught before being assignedto such posts, and that might have changed your answer, I might cut you some slack. However, the board of inquiry won't, and you would face, at a minimum, non-judicial punishment.

I am saying my answer was correct in rergards to the question.

 

[Havensdad]

So do you think that this is a tyrannical power?

To establish a system of weight and measures? No. To force me and Bob down the road to use that standard of measure in our dealings, instead of a different one agreed to between us? Yes.

 

[Salty]

Laws are designed to protect me from other people, not protect me from myself.

A child (even with parents help) should be able to normally have a lemonade stand in their front yard.

Now suppose their front yard is on a busy US Highway - now that would be dangerous, not only to the child business man, but to all motorists as well - as some might pull over to the side of the road to buy the lemonade.

There is one aspect that has not been considered yet.
Common Sense - the problem is Common sense is no longer that common.

Don - excellent question about shooting at that vehicle.

If I could add to that situation - since there was a checkpoint - chances are there were other officers available in vehicles. Radio contact would have them rolling within seconds.

Actually that happened to me in Zweibruecken, during the Baader-Meinhof Gang days. A vehicle sped thru my checkpoint - I radioed and within in 30 seconds 3 MP's were on his tail.


And Free - just a quick question - would you have supported the American Revolution in 1776?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

To establish a system of weight and measures? No. To force me and Bob down the road to use that standard of measure in our dealings, instead of a different one agreed to between us? Yes.

Well, fair play to you - though I differ with you and think your style of libertarianism is idealistic and unworkable, at least you are consistent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

According to the Constitution (Bill of Rights, specifically), no State has the right to infringe on the liberty of its citizenry. Requiring that you pay money to the government to buy back one of your rights is in fact infringing upon your Liberty. If I have lemonade, and I want to sell it to you, that is between you and me...not you, me, and our Nanny state.

Further, requiring a license in for one group in order to sell lemonade, while not requiring it of another group (such as a church having a bake sell), is a clear violation of the equal protection clause. It is unlawful to make exceptions for one group, while making a requirement of another.

As far as the "who", please read the Constitution. This government is "by the people"...thus, I as a citizen, have a right to disobey any law that I feel is unconstitutional, and have said law tried in a court of law. Of course, unfortunately the courts nowadays are heavily biased against liberty, which makes your stand against oppression less likely to succeed.

I have 6 chickens & one rooster in my back yard. for two years nobody complained but as my next door neighbor moved toward retirement age & wanted to sell the house & move, it became an issue. He 1st started by calling the health department (9 times) saying chickens are unhealthy. The wife cleans out the coop every day & when the health agent came out, they complemented us & said it was the cleanest coop they ever saw. Next he said the coop was causing rats....of course no rats or trace of them were ever found. Next it was the noises of the rooster so we went to a mediation & we agreed we would put a tarp around where he lives at night to muffle the crowing & so we did that. A week later they called the cops again claiming they were not satisfied with the mediation decision. At that point I was po'd & told them to take me to court. I got a good lawyer & we actually won the case because they were violating our rights & harassing us. My advise, if you have to protect your rights, fight for them & get a good lawyer who knows constitutional law.....our bottom line is fight for your rights, we did & won.

 

[Aaron]

Why must this be regulated? That is a preposterous statement. The very definition of "public" property, i.e. property which is owned no by an individual but is open to all, argues against your statement. I should not be required to beg and pay for permission to sell you something on property which I myself have an interest in.

Public property is not "open to all" for anything they want to do, and the operation of your lemonade stand in the public right of way may be an encumberance upon another's right of way. What if I wanted to set up in the same spot as you are? You have no more interest in it than I do, and your getting there first is irrelevant. It's ownership that's the issue. See? So, to protect another's right of way, your activity in the public right of way is regulated. The government is basically saying, yes, you may encumber upon another's right of way for this long for this amount of reimbursement to the public.

There are plenty of countries where it is perfectly legal to sell in the public sphere without a license or permit. Does it not bother you that middle eastern third world countries enjoy more freedoms than we enjoy here in the US?

I work in an industry where I have contact with people from all over the world, many from third world countries. You should ask them about their freedoms.

The whole business license/permitting idea is very recent in its development, and is yet one more aspect of control that the dictators at the top are forcing upon us. If I am in a public park, sidewalk, etc., I should not have to pay or get permission from big daddy government in order to sell another free citizen something. This is an infringement upon basic liberties which are part and parcel to not only the US constitution, but also various state constitutions as well. The government ignores these, for the sake of maintaining control, as well as for monetary reasons.

No. It's not new, however, I will agree that it has gotten oppressive. The "lemonade stand" in the article, though, is not an example of such.

 

[Don]

I am saying my answer was correct in rergards to the question.

No, what you're saying is that you don't accept what I'm telling you: that by following that order, you'd be guilty of following an illegal and immoral order; and that you actually have a legal and moral obligation not to follow that order.

 

[freeatlast]

No, what you're saying is that you don't accept what I'm telling you: that by following that order, you'd be guilty of following an illegal and immoral order; and that you actually have a legal and moral obligation not to follow that order.

You need to return and read my answer as I did not say what you are saying. My answer is correct to the question asked. Your military training is flawed.

 

[Havensdad]

Public property is not "open to all" for anything they want to do, and the operation of your lemonade stand in the public right of way may be an encumberance upon another's right of way.

There are separate laws for blocking traffic. We do not need to charge people to sell their own stuff.

What if I wanted to set up in the same spot as you are?

First come, first serve. What if someone wants to have a picnic in the park in the same place I do? Whoever gets there first, gets the spot. I guess according to you we need to draw a grid on the ground, and charge a "picnic" fee of 25 dollars, in order to keep such things orderly?

You have no more interest in it than I do, and your getting there first is irrelevant.

No, it is NOT irrelevant. This is how every other aspect of public property works. If my kid gets on the swing first at the park, he gets it: I guess we need to start charging the kids a five dollar "swing permit" fee, in order to control and designate who gets to swing where?

It's ownership that's the issue. See? So, to protect another's right of way, your activity in the public right of way is regulated. The government is basically saying, yes, you may encumber upon another's right of way for this long for this amount of reimbursement to the public.

I believe I have sufficiently debunked this. It is the governments way of saying "we want money from you, and we want control. So pay us 500 dollars for a business license to sell your stuff."

I work in an industry where I have contact with people from all over the world, many from third world countries. You should ask them about their freedoms.

I used to have a friend from Turkey that was CONSTANTLY pointing out all of the things they could do in Turkey, that were forbidden and regulated here.

Again, it is RIDICULOUS for the government to charge me money to sell my stuff in public areas, where anyone is allowed to set up picnics, preach, have get togethers, football games, etc., for free. There is simply no justifying your position that suddenly since I am selling something, that I suddenly have to pay the government for position. This is a clear infringement on my liberty.

No. It's not new, however, I will agree that it has gotten oppressive. The "lemonade stand" in the article, though, is not an example of such.

Yes it IS new. The lemonade stand in the article IS an example of such. There is no reason why these people should not be able to sell their lemonade. It is a violation of the equal protection clause, to say that you can use a public area freely for YOUR activity, (whatever that may be), on a first come first serve basis, but that I have to pay to use it for MY chosen activity. That is oppression, and over stepping of the Government, plain and simple.

 

[Salty]

You need to return and read my answer as I did not say what you are saying. My answer is correct to the question asked. Your military training is flawed.

and just what did your military training teach you?

 

[Don]

You need to return and read my answer as I did not say what you are saying. My answer is correct to the question asked. Your military training is flawed.

Oh please, by all means, explain.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh please, by all means, explain.

This ought to be good! :laugh:

 

[billwald]

>Doesn't matter; the question lies with "legal and moral."

If a post guard is required to shoot at a car which refuses to stop and the GI is not morally prepared to shoot then he should refuse the duty and take the consequences.

 

[Don]

>Doesn't matter; the question lies with "legal and moral."

If a post guard is required to shoot at a car which refuses to stop and the GI is not morally prepared to shoot then he should refuse the duty and take the consequences.

Yet, the guard may be justified in his refusal to shoot. What is the nature of the post that "requires" one to shoot? And don't forget: we're talking about the use of deadly force, to be used in the defense of others or self; what is it about the vehicle that presents a threat to others or yourself?

 

[Don]

Waiting for freeatlast to explain the military's flawed training....

 

[freeatlast]

Oh please, by all means, explain.

The original answer I gave was correct as to the question asked and the information given. It looks like the military has tied the hands of our boys and put them in a greater harms way them is needed. If a speeding vehicle was approaching a check point and showing signs of not stopping when it is clearly marked check point in a war zone and the duty officer or guard has to wait until fired on the take lethal action to stop the vehicle then the military training is flawed.
If that is the rules of engagement today then I would tell the military to find some foreign fighters to man their check point because I would not wear the uniform of any army that puts a higher price on the enemy's life then its own solders. What you are suggesting is flawed military training.

 

[Havensdad]

The original answer I gave was correct as to the question asked and the information given. It looks like the military has tied the hands of our boys and put them in a greater harms way them is needed. If a speeding vehicle was approaching a check point and showing signs of not stopping when it is clearly marked check point in a war zone and the duty officer or guard has to wait until fired on the take lethal action to stop the vehicle then the military training is flawed.
If that is the rules of engagement today then I would tell the military to find some foreign fighters to man their check point because I would not wear the uniform of any army that puts a higher price on the enemy's life then its own solders. What you are suggesting is flawed military training.

So you would break the rules, and stand against authority. Thank you for finally admitting it.

 

[freeatlast]

So you would break the rules, and stand against authority. Thank you for finally admitting it.

That is not what I said. I said I would not serve under such foolish rules. You need to read what is written.